\section{Comparison}

\begin{frame}
	\frametitle{Comparison}
	\begin{itemize}
		\item Comparison: Compression rate of our implementation, BWT using adaptive arithmetic encoding and Lempel-Ziv (gzip)
		\item Benchmark: Standard Calgary Corpus
		\begin{itemize}
			\item set of 18 files with varying characteristics
		\end{itemize}
	\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\small
\begin{tabular}{l|rrrr}
File & Orig. Size& Huffman & Arithmetic& Lempel-Ziv\\
\hline
bib & 111.3 & 33.3 & 29.6 & 35.1\\
book1 & 768.8 & 267.2 & 275.8 & 313.4\\
book2& 610.9 & 187.0 & 186.6 & 206.7\\
geo & 102.4 & 69.6 & 62.1 & 68.5 \\
news & 337.1 & 133.5 & 134.2 & 144.9 \\
obj2 & 246.8 & 88.7 & 81.9 & 81.6\\
paper1 & 53.161 & 18.2 & 17.7 & 18.6 \\
paper2 & 82.2 & 28.1 & 27.0 & 29.8\\
paper3 & 46.5 & 17.2 & 17.0 & 18.1\\
paper4 & 13.3 & 5.5 & 5.5 & 5.5\\
pic & 513.2 & 100.3 & 50.8 & 56.4 \\
progc & 39.6 & 13.6 & 13.3 & 13.3 \\
progl & 71.6 & 18.7 & 16.7 & 16.3
\end{tabular}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
	\frametitle{Conclusion}
	\begin{itemize}
		\item Average compression rate $\approx 3$
		\item Adap. arithmetic encoding almost always slightly better
		\item Adap. Huffman is in 7 of 13 cases better than Lempel-Ziv
		\item One outlier: pic
	\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
